79
79
Oct 2, 2012
10/12
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 79
favorite 0
quote 0
it extends -- we have a weak economy. what does it do? it extends the bush tax cuts and it lets the tax cuts for lower income working families expire. why would you let those that to, that ishave the highest pae buck to expire? but fundamentally, there is another issue here. as i have said, you do not go off a cliff into recession on january 2. but if you default, the hour -- a the reality is, if you were terrified about the economy there would have been a one-year extension of the debt limit the debt limit was a neck -- a mechanism to drive all spending cuts with no revenue increases. now that the issue was on the other foot there was an extension. there is a lack of parallelism where you approach the income tax cuts were there is a slow. >> diane, does there have to be this parallelism? >> i think there is a mixed in the 10-year window. obviously my favor a revenue heavy approach. that is not a secret. at 91% of the one-year fiscal cliff is revenue increases. the spending cuts are a small fraction of the size of the one- year cliff. i t
it extends -- we have a weak economy. what does it do? it extends the bush tax cuts and it lets the tax cuts for lower income working families expire. why would you let those that to, that ishave the highest pae buck to expire? but fundamentally, there is another issue here. as i have said, you do not go off a cliff into recession on january 2. but if you default, the hour -- a the reality is, if you were terrified about the economy there would have been a one-year extension of the debt limit...
138
138
Oct 4, 2012
10/12
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 138
favorite 0
quote 0
the other is to grow the economy. if more people are at work in a growing economy, they are paying taxes, and you can get the job done that way. the president would prefer raising taxes. i understand. the problem with raising taxes is it slows down the rate of growth, and you can never quite get the job done. i want to lower spending and encourage economic growth at the same time. what things would i cut from spending. first of all, i would eliminate all programs by this test if they don't pass it. is the program so critical it is worth borrowing money from china to pay for it? if not, it goes. obama care is on my list -- i apologize if i used that determine -- term -- >> it's ok. >> thanks. i'm not going to borrow money from china to pay for things. i will cut pbs. i will take programs that are currently good programs but i think would be more efficiently run at the state level. number three, i will make government more efficient and cut back the number of employees. i would cut back agencies and departments. my cutb
the other is to grow the economy. if more people are at work in a growing economy, they are paying taxes, and you can get the job done that way. the president would prefer raising taxes. i understand. the problem with raising taxes is it slows down the rate of growth, and you can never quite get the job done. i want to lower spending and encourage economic growth at the same time. what things would i cut from spending. first of all, i would eliminate all programs by this test if they don't pass...
121
121
Oct 4, 2012
10/12
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 121
favorite 0
quote 0
i'm focusedton economy. and i thought from the moment of the debate it was very clear that's what he was all about. and he executed over the last hour and a half. it's sort of the historic norm if you're a democrat in a presidential election, you run to the left and get your nomination and pivot back to the middle and for romney ran unsuccessfully for the nomination. he had been running to the right for four years. and i think it becomes like a conditioned behavior. and i think he was slow making the turn back and heading towards swing voters. and i didn't really see him doing that effectively until his convention speech. and then really really really last night. and last night, it really was the first time this campaign that he struck me like the guy that i saw in 1994 and the guy that ran as governor that he was sort of back close to mitt romney 1.0 as opposed to 2.0 or 3.0 and back to who he is. and i tend to think that people -- when you're not pretending to be somebody else, i think you do a better job.
i'm focusedton economy. and i thought from the moment of the debate it was very clear that's what he was all about. and he executed over the last hour and a half. it's sort of the historic norm if you're a democrat in a presidential election, you run to the left and get your nomination and pivot back to the middle and for romney ran unsuccessfully for the nomination. he had been running to the right for four years. and i think it becomes like a conditioned behavior. and i think he was slow...